SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Petition SEC-00152 

Report Rev #: 0 Report Submittal Date: September 28, 2009

Subject Expert(s): Michael Kubiak, Fred Duncan 

Site Expert(s): Don Bihl, Jack Fix, Bruce Napier 

Petitioner Administrative Summary 

Petition Under Evaluation 

Petition # Petition 

Type 

Petition A 

Receipt Date DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC-00152 83.14 September 8, 2009 Hanford 

NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition 

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors 

who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, for a 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 

included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

Related Petition Summary Information 

SEC Petition Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status 

SEC-00057 83.13 Hanford Two classes included in the SEC 

Related Evaluation Report Information 

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-1 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-2

Hanford 

Hanford 

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Michael Kubiak ORAU Review Completed By: James M. Mahathy

Peer Review Completed By: signature 

Sam Glover Date 

SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: signature 

J. W. Neton Date 

SEC Evaluation Approved By: signature 

Larry Elliott Date 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

2 of 41

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00152, Hanford 

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) 

addresses a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384 et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees 

as Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000. 

NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition

All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and its contractors and 

subcontractors who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, from October 1, 1943 

through June 30, 1972, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring 

either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within the parameters 

established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction Findings 

NIOSH lacks sufficient information, which includes biological monitoring data, sufficient air 

monitoring information, or sufficient process and radiological source information, to allow it to 

estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal exposures to purified polonium, thorium, or 

neptunium to which the proposed class may have been subjected. 

NIOSH finds that it is likely feasible to reconstruct occupational medical dose for Hanford workers 

with sufficient accuracy. 

There are currently two classes of Hanford workers associated with two previous NIOSH evaluations 

of SEC petition SEC-00057. The earliest period currently designated for inclusion in the SEC begins 

October 1, 1943. The latest period currently designated for inclusion in the SEC ends on December 

31, 1968. 

Through the course of ongoing dose reconstruction and continued data capture efforts, NIOSH has 

determined that additional dose reconstruction infeasibilities exist due to work at Hanford with 

inadequately monitored radionuclides such as purified forms of polonium, thorium, and neptunium. 

These additional dose reconstruction infeasibilities envelop the time period of January 1, 1945 

through June 30, 1972, and as such extend beyond the time period associated with the existing 

approved SEC classes for Hanford. 

NIOSH has determined that reconstruction of internal dose is not feasible for the summative time 

period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, due to the lack of adequate biological monitoring 

data, sufficient air monitoring information, or sufficient process and radiological source term data. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

3 of 41

NIOSH has further determined that there is insufficient information available to enable NIOSH to 

accurately assess whether an energy employee, or class of employees, did, or did not, potentially enter 

specific Areas of the Hanford site during the periods of time associated with both: 

1. the previously designated SEC classes; and 

2. the recently identified polonium, thorium, and neptunium dose reconstruction infeasibilities. 

Due to the lack of access control and worker movement data, NIOSH has determined that it is 

necessary to remove the Area-specific parameters associated with the current Hanford SEC class 

definitions. Therefore, NIOSH finds it necessary to include all workers and all areas in the proposed 

SEC class definition for the period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972. 

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, the NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed at 

the Hanford site during the period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, but who do not 

qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate. 

Health Endangerment Determination

The NIOSH evaluation did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other 

resources that would establish that the class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely 

to have involved exceptionally high-level exposures, such as nuclear criticality incidents or other 

events involving similarly high levels of exposures. However, the evidence reviewed in this 

evaluation indicates that some workers in the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures 

through intakes of inadequately monitored radionuclides and from direct exposure to radioactive 

materials. Therefore, 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3)(ii) requires NIOSH to specify that health may have 

been endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for this class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

4 of 41

Table of Contents 

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00152, Hanford ............................................................................... 2

1.0 Purpose and Scope....................................................................................................................... 7

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 7

3.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition and Petition Basis................................................................ 8

4.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class ......................................................... 10

4.1 Operations Description..................................................................................................... 10

4.1.1 Polonium Operations............................................................................................ 10

4.1.2 Thorium Operations.............................................................................................. 12

4.1.3 Neptunium Operations.......................................................................................... 15

4.2 Radiation Exposure Potential from Operations................................................................ 16

4.3 Time Period Associated with Radiological Operations.................................................... 16

4.4 Site Locations Associated with Radiological Operations ................................................ 19

4.5 Job Descriptions Affected by Radiological Operations ................................................... 19

5.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class.............................................. 19

5.1 Data Capture Efforts and Sources Reviewed ................................................................... 20

5.2 Worker Interviews............................................................................................................ 20

5.3 Internal Personnel Monitoring Data ................................................................................. 21

5.3.1 Polonium Internal Personnel Monitoring Data..................................................... 21

5.3.2 Thorium Internal Personnel Monitoring Data ...................................................... 21

5.3.3 Neptunium Internal Personnel Monitoring Data .................................................. 22

5.4 External Personnel Monitoring Data................................................................................ 22

5.5 Workplace Monitoring Data............................................................................................. 23

5.5.1 Polonium Workplace Monitoring Data ................................................................ 23

5.5.2 Thorium Workplace Monitoring Data.................................................................. 23

5.5.3 Neptunium Workplace Monitoring Data.............................................................. 23

5.6 Radiological Source Term Data ....................................................................................... 24

6.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class ...................................................... 24

6.1 Feasibility of Estimating Internal Exposures ................................................................... 25

6.2 Feasibility of Estimating External Exposures .................................................................. 26

6.3 Class Parameters Associated with Infeasibility................................................................ 26

7.0 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00152........................................................ 27

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00152................................................... 27

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00152 ...................................................................... 28
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

5 of 41

10.0 Evaluation of Second Similar Class .......................................................................................... 28

11.0 References ................................................................................................................................. 29

Attachment 1: Data Capture Synopsis................................................................................................... 35

Figure 

Figure 4-1: Hanford Site in 1965........................................................................................................... 11

Table 

Table 4-1: Years, Operational Areas, and Radionuclides Associated with Hanford SEC-00152......... 18
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

6 of 41

This page intentionally left blank 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

7 of 41

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00152

ATTRIBUTION AND ANNOTATION: This is a single-author document. All conclusions drawn from 

the data presented in this evaluation were made by the ORAU Team Lead Technical Evaluator: 

Michael Kubiak, MJW Technical Services. These conclusions were peer-reviewed by the individuals 

listed on the cover page. The rationales for all conclusions in this document are explained in the 

associated text. 

1.0 Purpose and Scope 

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for employees who worked at a specific 

facility during a specified time. It provides information and analysis germane to considering a petition 

for adding a class of employees to the Congressionally-created SEC. 

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH, with the exception of the employee whose dose reconstruction could not be completed, and 

whose claim consequently led to this petition evaluation. The finding in this report is not the final 

determination as to whether or not the proposed class will be added to the SEC. This report will be 

considered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) and by the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Secretary of HHS will make final decisions concerning 

whether or not to add one or more classes to the SEC in response to the petition addressed by this 

report. 

This evaluation, in which NIOSH provides its findings both on the feasibility of estimating radiation 

doses of members of this class with sufficient accuracy and on health endangerment, was conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14. 

2.0 Introduction 

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services add a class of employees to the SEC. The evaluation is 

intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to estimate, with 

sufficient accuracy, the radiation doses of the proposed class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.1

 

1

 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

8 of 41

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioners and the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. The Board will consider the NIOSH evaluation 

report, together with the petition, comments of the petitioner(s) and such other information as the 

Board considers appropriate, to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not to 

add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this final decision process, the 

petitioner(s) may seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.2

3.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition and Petition Basis 

The NIOSH-proposed class includes all employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor 

agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, 

Washington, from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, for a number of work days aggregating at 

least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days 

within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort. During this period, employees at this facility were involved with fabrication of 

various reactor fuels, reactor operations and maintenance, and chemical separations involving various 

fission product and transuranic radionuclides. 

The evaluation responds to Petition SEC-00152 which was submitted by an EEOICPA claimant 

whose dose reconstruction could not be completed by NIOSH due to a lack of sufficient dosimetryrelated information. This claimant was employed as a laboratory technician and manager from 1968 

through 2008. NIOSH’s determination that it is unable to complete a dose reconstruction for an 

EEOICPA claimant is a qualified basis for submitting an SEC petition pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 

83.9(b). 

There are currently two classes of Hanford workers associated with the previous NIOSH evaluations 

of SEC petition SEC-00057, for which the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has 

designated inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort: 

 Class added to the SEC effective October 12, 2007 (HHS, 2007): Employees of the Department of 

Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, or DOE contractors or subcontractors who were 

monitored or should have been monitored for internal radiological exposures while working at the 

Hanford Engineer Works in: the 300 Area fuel fabrication and research facilities from October 1, 

1943, through August 31, 1946; the 200 Area plutonium separation facilities from November 1, 

1944 through August 31, 1946; or the 100 B, D, and F reactor areas from September 1, 1944, 

through August 31, 1946; for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

 

2

 See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

9 of 41

 Class added to the SEC effective June 29, 2008 (HHS, 2008): All employees of the Department of 

Energy (DOE), its predecessor agencies, and DOE contractors or subcontractors who worked 

from: 

1. September 1, 1946 through December 31, 1961 in the 300 area; or 

2. January 1, 1949 through December 31, 1968 in the 200 areas (East and West) at the Hanford 

Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington, for a number of work days aggregating at least 

250 work days occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work 

days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the 

Special Exposure Cohort. 

Detailed information associated with the worker classes added to the SEC in 2007 and 2008 can be 

found in the respective NIOSH evaluation reports, SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC00057-1 (NIOSH, 2007), and SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00057-2 (NIOSH, 2008). 

The earliest start date of the 2007 SEC class, October 1, 1943 for the 300 Area, was based on uranium 

(in the form of rods extruded off-site) being brought to Hanford in October 1943, and stored in the 

300 Area (NIOSH 2007). The differing start dates for the 100 and 200 Areas were based on the start 

of the earliest radiological operations for those facilities. NIOSH proposed these area-specific class 

parameters based on the belief that sufficient data were available for NIOSH to adequately determine 

employees’ work locations throughout their periods of employment. The end dates of the areaspecific class parameters for the SEC class added in 2007 were based on the end of DuPont operations 

in August 1946, with NIOSH’s intent to separately evaluate the subsequent years associated with the 

SEC petition SEC-00057. 

The 2008 SEC class designation is also area-specific due to the NIOSH belief that enough data were 

available to enable NIOSH to determine the periods of time when a worker might have accessed, or 

not accessed, Areas 100, 200, or 300. The Area 200 class parameters were based on NIOSH’s 

inability to assess with sufficient accuracy, the internal doses due to purified americium prior to 1969. 

The Area 300 class parameters were based on the inability to assess with sufficient accuracy, the 

internal doses due to purified thorium prior to 1962. 

Through the course of ongoing dose reconstruction and continued data capture efforts, NIOSH has 

determined that additional dose reconstruction infeasibilities exist due to work with inadequately 

monitored radionuclides such as purified forms of polonium, thorium, and neptunium. As detailed in 

this evaluation, some of these recently identified dose reconstruction infeasibilities extend beyond the 

time period associated with the existing approved SEC classes for Hanford. Therefore, NIOSH has 

determined that it is necessary to propose the extension of the SEC time period for the Hanford site 

through June 30, 1972. 

Further, through experience gained during dose reconstruction efforts, NIOSH has also determined 

that there is often insufficient information available to enable NIOSH to accurately assess whether an 

energy employee, or class of employees, did, or did not, potentially enter specific Areas of the 

Hanford site during defined periods of time. Due to the lack of access control and worker movement 

data, NIOSH has determined that it is necessary to remove the Area-specific parameters associated 

with the current Hanford SEC class definitions, and therefore include all workers and all Areas in the 

proposed SEC class definition for the specified time period. NIOSH has determined that expansion of 

the SEC class is warranted for the Hanford site in order to include all workers and all Areas from the 

date of the start of radiological operations, determined to be October 1, 1943 (NIOSH, 2007; HHS, 

2007) through June 30, 1972. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

10 of 41

4.0 Radiological Operations Relevant to the Proposed Class 

The following subsections summarize the radiological operations at the Hanford site from the start of 

radiological operations on October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, and the information available to 

NIOSH to characterize particular processes and radioactive source materials. Using available sources, 

NIOSH has attempted to gather process and source descriptions, information regarding the identity 

and quantities of radionuclides of concern, and information describing processes through which the 

radiation exposures of concern may have occurred and the physical environment in which they may 

have occurred. The information included within this evaluation report is meant only to be a summary 

of the available information. 

4.1 Operations Description 

This section describes specific operations in the 100, 200, and 300 Areas of the Hanford site that are 

relevant to the NIOSH-proposed SEC class for all workers through June 30, 1972. The information 

presented in this section is not intended to be an exhaustive description of all radiological activities, 

but rather an example of major operations involving purified forms of polonium, thorium, and 

neptunium for which NIOSH has found dose reconstruction to be infeasible (see Section 6 for 

feasibility determinations). 

Figure 4-1 shows the Hanford site during the Cold War era (around 1965) when the site was called 

Hanford Works (Hanford History, 2002, pdf p. 29). 

4.1.1 Polonium Operations 

Polonium-210, also called “chemical 14-92” or “postum,” was generated via the activation of bismuth 

metal (sometimes called “chemical 37-77,” “soda pulp,” or “B Metal”) in the Hanford reactors. On 

January 31, 1945, Robert Bacher reported to Robert Oppenheimer that a polonium-210/beryllium-9 

implosion initiator (still to be designed) was possible. Initiator tests began in February 1945, causing 

demand for polonium to rise to 100 curies/month (AHF, 2009). 

B-Reactor was already operating and F-Reactor came on-line in February. Plans were made for 

bismuth rods suitable for canning to be delivered by the government to Hanford, where the material 

was placed in cans suitable for exposure in the Hanford reactor pile. After completion of irradiation, 

the irradiated pieces were placed in containers and shipped to the Monsanto site in Dayton, Ohio 

(Tilley, 1945). In order to allow for assay of the polonium content of some of the early slugs, 

equipment was assembled for stripping the aluminum cans from the slugs prior to shipping (100 Area 

Monthly Report, February 1945). It is noted in a Health Instruments monthly report for March 1945, 

“The survey program... covered the handling of special bismuth slugs. Uncanned slugs were a potent 

beta source... in addition to the hazard of polonium contamination in the air. The canned slugs 

presented no handling problems” (HI Monthly Report, March 1945, p. 18). The opened slugs were 

subsequently shipped to Monsanto in hermetically-sealed shipping containers where Monsanto 

conducted three separate polonium-210 assays on bismuth material that had been irradiated at Hanford 

from February 23 through March 8, 1945 (Hanford Engineer Works Monthly Report, April, 1945, pp. 

27-28). 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

11 of 41

Figure 4-1: Hanford Site in 1965 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

12 of 41

Following these initial measurements, shipments of irradiated bismuth became routine. The first 

relatively large-scale shipment of soda pulp was made from the 100-B Area on May 5, 1945. The 

shipment consisted of seventy units of soda pulp, which had been charged in the 100-B pile on March 

9, 1945 and discharged on April 26, 1945, with an estimated content of 210 curies of polonium (100 

Area Monthly Report, May 1945). 

Bismuth irradiation for polonium production continued as a routine part of Hanford operations 

through the 1950s, 1960s, and into the 1970s. Various Hanford and Mound polonium production 

documents illustrate the ongoing shipment of irradiated bismuth from Hanford, including plans to use 

the Hanford reactors and the Reduction Oxidation Plant (REDOX) to produce polonium through 1971 

(Essig, 1965; Nason, 1966, p. 70; Essig, 1968, pp. 33-34; Monsanto, 1972, p. 24). Polonium research 

and production at Mound were eventually phased out in 1971 (GlobalSecurity, 2005). 

Polonium experiments, such as study of polonium volatility from oxides, were performed in the 300 

Area starting in 1963 and continuing through 1969. Worker interviews conducted by NIOSH indicate 

that much of the work was performed in the 325 Building where polonium-210 was purified in the 

325 Building under a contract with the 3M Company (Personal Communication, 2008e). The 

polonium work was performed in glove boxes in the center hall of the 325 Building. Irradiated 

bismuth was de-jacketed, the metal was dissolved in hot caustic, and the polonium was then 

precipitated out of the caustic solution. NIOSH has found indications that complimentary studies 

were also being undertaken in the 200 Areas in 1965 and 1966, with small-scale engineering 

experiments on solvent extraction in the 200 Area Chemical Research and Development organization 

(200 Area Monthly Report, June 1966). 

4.1.2 Thorium Operations 

In October 1945, the first known activities with thorium at Hanford laboratories involved the use of 

small metallic pieces obtained from Oak Ridge, Tennessee for experiments on physical 

characterization (Gydesen, 1954). This work included machining two thorium slugs to standard size 

and performing trial canning (Smith, 1945). Similar metallic pieces were used to determine thorium’s 

effects on reactor reactivity in the Building 305 Test Pile. 

In January 1946, Hanford received a shipment of 150 pounds of thorium, which consisted of crooked 

four- to five-foot long rods that required straightening prior to machining (Smith, 1946; Gydesen, 

1954). To prevent the rods from being contaminated with uranium from the contaminated equipment 

in Building 314, these thorium rods were straightened manually in the 300 Area Maintenance Shop 

with a 75-ton press. Following straightening, the rods were cut with a power hack-saw into 33 slugs, 

then machined on a small lathe in the 313 Tool Room. The slugs were then canned, welded, and 

tested for integrity by autoclaving in the 314 Building (Gydesen, 1954; Gerber, 1992). Airborne 

contamination readings within and near the 313 and 314 Buildings were frequently high, resulting 

from lathe and machining operations, extrusion press work, straightening, outgassing, and other fuel 

fabrication procedures. Radiation monitoring personnel often reported “metal dust” in building and 

vicinity air as being “over tolerance” for uranium with ventilation “not adequate.” Autoclave 

explosions also contributed to the contamination (Gerber, 1992). The first production batch of 30 

thorium (aka. myrnalloy) slugs was inserted into a Hanford reactor in 1946 (Wende, 1946a; Wende, 

1946b). 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

13 of 41

The first major tests of metallic thorium elements in the Hanford reactors began with element 

fabrication using standard Hanford techniques on metallic thorium slugs in the 300 Area facilities in 

late 1951. Many problems connected with the rapid formation of a thick coat of oxide on the thorium 

metal targets led to experiments with a variety of bonding methods and coatings. These tests resulted 

in large-scale thorium contamination being introduced into the 313 Metal Fabrication Building and 

surrounding fuel warehouses. Thorium work in Building 313 continued until l970 (Gerber, 1992). 

Powdered thorium oxide fuel targets (wafers) were fabricated in the 3732 Building from 1965 to 

1967. Sintering of the wafers was part of the process in the 3732 Building. A new technique 

involving pelletized targets replaced the 3732 Building operations. The pelletized targets were 

fabricated in the 3722 Building from 1968 through 1970. In addition, that building housed a furnace 

for the “recycling” (reduction) of depleted thorium oxide after it was processed in the PlutoniumUranium Extraction (PUREX) Plant. When not recycled to the 3732 Building, the thorium nitrate was 

placed in the 241-WR Vault in the 200 West Area (Isochem, 1967); this was stand-alone storage area 

slightly northeast of Uranium Plant. 

Thorium work was also conducted in Building 306 (alloy and fabrication test and development) from 

1955 through 1970 (Rad Monitoring Unit Monthly Report, June 1955; Rad Monitoring Unit Monthly 

Report, August 1955); Building 3706 (radiochemistry in support of fuel fabrication) from 1954 

through 1963; and Building 3722 (machining of thorium rods in the early years, and later the 

fabrication of pelletized fuel targets) from 1946 through 1970. The 3707-A and 3707-B change 

houses became contaminated due to contamination spread from the nearby fuel fabrication and scrap 

storage buildings (Gerber, 1992). 

 

In the 306-W and 306-E Buildings, releases included the spread of airborne dust and particulate 

contamination, including uranium and thorium, and multiple leaks and fires that occurred in and 

around the building. The fires occurred in barrels and waste “load luggers” that contained uranium, 

thorium, heavy metals, and other fuel component scrap. The long-lived contamination settled in 

building sumps, crevices, and nearby soil. The area around the building has been paved and posted as 

having underground radioactive contamination (EPA, 2001). 

The 3706 Building was contaminated as a result of operations and associated spills. Contamination 

resulted from inadequate containment systems, spills, overflows, vaporization, spreads of radioactive 

dusts and fines, and other incidents involving the loss of control of radioactive materials. In 1954, the 

building underwent a major decontamination and remodeling effort and many of the laboratories were 

converted into offices. Sampling laboratories for fuel fabrication operations continued until they were 

transferred to the 3720 Building in the mid-1960s (EPA, 2001). 

The 321 Separation Building was constructed during World War II as Hanford’s pilot-scale plant for 

testing chemical process improvements. The 321 Canyon provided support for 300 Area laboratory 

programs dedicated to the development of production reactor fuel. After irradiation, chemical 

separation of various forms of thorium-target fuel elements took place in the 321 Building using the 

Thorex separation process (Gerber, 1992; EPA, 2001). 

By the end of 1953, thorium elements were being used in all Hanford reactors for use as fluxflattening poisons, replacing lithium-aluminum and bismuth (DeNeal, 1970). The first thorium 

element failure occurred in January 1954 in H reactor; a poorly-manufactured element ruptured 

(Brugge, 1954). Two more of these elements ruptured in B reactor in April and September 1954. 

These ruptures were repaired with standard maintenance techniques, which included removing the 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

14 of 41

tubes in which the slugs were stuck. NIOSH has found no evidence that any special precautions or 

other controls were used, other than the routine Hanford procedures. 

Hanford received an order from the AEC for 110 kg of uranium-233 in mid-1964, which was 

subsequently increased to 140 kg in early 1965 (DeNeal, 1970). In addition to the 300 Area buildings 

previously used for thorium work in the 1950s, Building 3732 was used for fabrication of thoriumoxide fuel targets and was used as a furnace for recycling depleted thorium from 1965 through 1970. 

Powdered thorium-oxide fuel targets for uranium-233 production were fabricated at Building 3732 

from 1965 to 1967. From 1968 through 1970, the program switched to pelletized targets that were 

canned. The processes spread fine and particulate contamination throughout the building. 

Decontamination practices included hosing down the facility floor and walls, which allowed 

contaminated liquid to be released into the surrounding soil (EPA, 2001). 

The Hanford site conducted two campaigns to produce uranium-233 through irradiation of thorium232-based target rods. These thoria elements were manufactured in the 300 Area and processed at 

PUREX in the 200 Area, with a Thorex process test in 1965 and two major thorium campaigns in 

1966 and 1970 (Briggs, 2001). During 1965-1966, the PUREX facility processed powdered thoriumoxide fuel targets that had been irradiated for the production of uranium-233. However, the 

processing campaign caused plugging and other equipment and contamination problems within 

PUREX (Gerber, 1993). In 1970, a more successful campaign processed pelletized thorium-oxide 

targets. The PUREX thorium work recovered approximately 565 tons of thorium in the nitrate form 

from both campaigns (Gerber, 1992; Walser, 1978; ARHCO, 1971). No evidence has been found 

indicating that special health-physics precautions were taken during the manufacturing of the 

elements. The only obvious changes at PUREX were related to criticality safety (Gerber, 1993). The 

material was transferred in bottles to the pipe gallery of the 221-U Building prior to shipment. Some 

re-bottling of product occurred in a specially-constructed metal enclosure at the northeast end of the 

pipe gallery; this was ventilated with a blower-filter arrangement (ARHCO, 1971). 

During 1965-1966, an experimental processing of commercial thorium nitrate into thorium-oxide 

powder was carried out in the 224-U Bulk Reduction Building, known as the UO3 Plant, using the old 

electric pots. The goal of this work was to produce thorium-oxide powder suitable for fabrication into 

reactor target elements for uranium-233 production (Gerber, 1993). The task involved a few hundred 

pounds of thorium. 

All known fuel-element failures in the single-pass Hanford reactors are summarized in the report 

titled, Fuel-Element Failures in Hanford Single-Pass Reactors 1944-1971 (Gydesen, 1993). Just over 

2000 leaks in the fuel cladding, of various degrees of severity, are reported. In the first years, a 

limited number of elements were manufactured using thorium metal, in a manner analogous to that 

used for uranium. A total of 27 fuel-element leaks occurred during the program to produce uranium233 from thoria fuel during the period from 1965-1968. The thoria elements were manufactured in 

the 300 Area, irradiated in the 100 Area, and processed at PUREX in the 200 Area. 

NIOSH has found no evidence that the thoria-related fuel failure remediation was accomplished with 

anything other than the routine Hanford processes and monitoring. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

15 of 41

4.1.3 Neptunium Operations 

Neptunium-237 was irradiated to produce plutonium-238, which was used as a heat source for thermal 

generators. The May 1948, 200 Area monthly report listed as activities for the month “preparation for 

and crude separation of neptunium from metal wastes of 385 g/ton material” (200 Area Monthly 

Report, May 1948, p. 52). The June 1948 monthly report states “170 liters of neptunium solution 

were shipped to Argonne National Laboratory” (200 Area Monthly Report, June 1948, p. 73). 

In 1957, Hanford was investigating the amount of neptunium-237 contained and potentially 

extractable from weapons-grade spent fuel, and was investigating chemical procedures for extracting 

the neptunium at the fuel-separations facilities (Sheppard, 1957; Judson, 1958). The Palm Recovery 

Progress Report indicates that as early as November 1956, small, laboratory-scale samples were 

grabbed from the PUREX dissolution stream and analyzed for the neptunium-237 content (Sheppard, 

1957, p. 4). Three small runs simulating the PUREX chemistry conditions were performed in 

February 1957 (Hanford Lab Operations Monthly Activities Report, February 1957, p. 63). 

Extraction of neptunium-enriched nitrate solution from PUREX began on August 7, 1958, with two 

campaigns in 1958 (August and November) (Briggs, 2001, p. 28; Travis, 1958; Geier, 1961). 

Neptunium purification was performed in a special room at 222-S, called the 1-F Cubicle. During the 

period that the neptunium solution was purified at 222-S, the incoming material from PUREX and 

REDOX was highly contaminated. For instance, impurity data on runs numbered 12-58 (in 1958), 

and 40, 44, 46, 52, and 53 (circa 1961) show that the activity of plutonium, mostly plutonium239+240, ranged from 3 to 81 times greater than the activity of neptunium-237 (Buckingham, 1959; 

Buckingham, 1961). However, the purified product had low levels of contaminants, with the activity 

of plutonium ranging from 0.3% to 4% of the neptunium activity for the 6 runs discussed above 

(Buckingham, 1959; Buckingham, 1961). 

Starting in 1963, the purification of the neptunium was transferred to PUREX in J Cell and Q Cell, 

and purification at 222-S was stopped (Buckingham, 1963; Briggs, 2001, p. 30; Duckworth, 1963, pp. 

12 & 19; Unknown author, 1963). NIOSH has found specifications for shipments of neptunium from 

PUREX from August 1963 through the last shipment in May 1972 (Various authors, 1962-1965; 

Various authors, 1966; Various authors, 1967-1972; Malody, 1971a; Malody, 1971b; Malody, 1971c; 

Malody, 1972a; Malody, 1972b). Production of neptunium nitrate in the 200 Areas ceased with the 

shutdown of PUREX in June 1972 (Hanford History, 1991; Hanford History, 2002, pdf p. 87; 

PUREX, 1993). 

Fabrication of neptunium-target elements also involved handling the purified neptunium mixture. 

Workers interviewed by NIOSH indicated that nitrate or oxide was shipped to Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory and the Savannah River Site, and that the oxide was mixed with aluminum powder and 

sent to 231-Z for fabrication into neptunium-aluminum alloy target elements (Personal 

Communication, 2008a; Personal Communication, 2008d; Personal Communication, 2008l). 

Neptunium work in the 300 Area involved the target-element fabrication in the 308 Plutonium Fuels 

Pilot Plant beginning in 1966 (ORAUT-TKBS-0006-2; Gerber, 1992, p. 216), and manufacturing and 

canning of neptunium-oxide fuel targets in the 3708 Building in 1968 (Gerber, 1992, p. 71). 

According to a paper written by E. J. Wheelwright, irradiation and neptunium/plutonium separation 

occurred in 1969-1970 using a new dissolver in C Cell (Wheelwright, 1970). Decanning occurred at 

the Radiometallurgy Building (327 Building) (Wheelwright, 1970, p. 12). The remaining work 

occurred in the A, B, and C hotcells at the 325 Building, and the neptunium product was oxidized at 

the 325 Building (Wheelwright, 1970, p. 21). 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

16 of 41

4.2 Radiation Exposure Potential from Operations 

The potential for internal and external radiation dose existed at the 100 Area, 200 Area, and 300 Area 

of the Hanford facility, as presented in Section 4.1 above. Based on the site operations outlined in 

Section 4.1, sources of exposure relevant to this SEC evaluation included internal exposures to 

purified forms of polonium, thorium, and neptunium. Based on the previous NIOSH evaluation of the 

early DuPont years at Hanford (NIOSH, 2007; HHS, 2007), additional sources of relevant exposure 

for the period from October 1, 1943 through August 31, 1946 include internal exposures to uranium 

brought on site in October 1943. 

This evaluation responds to a petition based on NIOSH determining that internal radiation exposures 

could not be reconstructed for a dose reconstruction referred to NIOSH by the DOL. As such, it is not 

necessary for NIOSH to fully evaluate the feasibility of reconstructing external radiation exposures for 

the class of workers covered by this report; this report concentrates of the relevant aspects of internal 

exposures and internal exposure monitoring during the specified time period. 

4.3 Time Period Associated with Radiological Operations 

As presented in Section 4.1, the potential internal exposure scenarios associated with this proposed 

SEC class are as follows: 

Polonium

 Area 100 from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1971 

Very early in 1945, prior to shipment to the Monsanto site, irradiated bismuth slugs containing 

polonium were processed in the Reactor Areas. NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign an 

exact date early in 1945, and therefore assumes January 1, 1945 as the start date. Shipments of 

irradiated bismuth continued through 1971. NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign an exact 

end date in 1971, and therefore assumes December 31, 1971 as the end date. 

 Area 200 from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1966 

Engineering experiments on solvent extraction occurred in 1965 and 1966. NIOSH lacks 

sufficient information to assign exact start and end dates, and therefore assumes January 1 and 

December 31, respectively. 

 Area 300 from January 1, 1963 through December 31, 1969 

Polonium experiments and separations occurred in the 325 Building from 1963 through 1969. 

NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign exact start and end dates, and therefore assumes 

January 1 and December 31, respectively. 

Thorium

 Area 100 from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1968 

Fuel element failures associated with the irradiation of thorium fuel occurred during the 1965-

1970 campaigns to produce uranium-233. NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign exact 

start and end dates, and therefore assumes January 1 and December 31, respectively. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

17 of 41

 Area 200 from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1970 

Major thorium operations in Area 200 began with a test of the Thorex process in 1965, and 

continued through the final major campaign to fabricate, irradiate, and process pelletized thoriumoxide targets in 1970. NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign exact start and end dates, and 

therefore assumes January 1 and December 31, respectively. 

 Area 300 from October 1, 1945 through December 31, 1970 

Site thorium operations began with trial canning in October 1945 and continued through the final 

major campaign to fabricate, irradiate, and process pelletized thorium-oxide targets in 1970. 

NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign exact start and end dates, and therefore assumes 

October 1 and December 31, respectively. 

Neptunium

 Area 200 from May 1, 1948 through June 30, 1972 

Area 200 neptunium-237 operations began with the crude separation of neptunium from metal 

wastes, first reported in May 1948. Production of neptunium nitrate in the 200 Area ceased with 

the shutdown of PUREX in June 1972. NIOSH lacks sufficient information to assign exact start 

and end dates, and therefore assumes May 1 and June 30, respectively. 

 Area 300 from January 1, 1966 through December 31, 1970 

Neptunium work in the 300 Area began with target-element fabrication beginning in 1966. 

Neptunium/plutonium separations continued into 1970. NIOSH lacks sufficient information to 

assign exact start and end dates, and therefore assumes January 1 and December 31, respectively. 

As stated in Section 3.0, in 2007 HHS designated a class of Hanford employees for inclusion in the 

SEC. The earliest start date associated with the Area-specific 2007 SEC designation was October 1, 

1943, for workers at the Hanford Engineer Works in the 300 Area fuel fabrication and research 

facilities. The existing 2007 SEC designation for Area 300 continues through August 31, 1946. The 

time period enveloped by the polonium, thorium, and neptunium operations detailed above is January 

1, 1945 through June 30, 1972. 

It is NIOSH’s intent to remove the Area-specific class parameters from the periods associated with the 

existing SEC classes previously designated in 2007 and 2008. To accomplish such, in this evaluation 

NIOSH is combining the time periods associated with the 2007 and 2008 class designations with the 

periods of operations described in Section 4.1 of this report. Combining the time periods associated 

with the operations described in Section 4.1 with the time period of the SEC class already designated 

in 2007, yields a summative time period for this evaluation of October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

18 of 41

Table 4-1 summarizes the preceding information in Section 4 on years, operational areas, and 

radionuclides as they relate to this evaluation (SEC-00152) and the two preceding evaluations 

performed for the Hanford site (SEC-00057-1 and SEC-00057-2), as explained in the Legend. 

Table 4-1: Years, Operational Areas, and Radionuclides Associated with Hanford SEC-00152 

Year 100 Area 200 Area 300 Area 

1943 57-1 

1944 57-1 57-1 57-1 

1945 Po 57-1 57-1 Th* 57-1 

1946 Po 57-1 57-1 Th 57-1 

1947 Po Th 57-2 

1948 Po Np# 57-2 Th 57-2 

1949 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1950 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1951 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1952 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1953 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1954 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1955 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1956 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1957 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1958 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1959 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1960 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1961 Po Np 57-2 Th 57-2 

1962 Po Np 57-2 Th 

1963 Po Np 57-2 Po, Th 

1964 Po Np 57-2 Po, Th 

1965 Po, Th Np, Po, Th 57-2 Po, Th 

1966 Po, Th Np, Po, Th 57-2 Np, Po, Th 

1967 Po, Th Np, Th 57-2 Np, Po, Th 

1968 Po, Th Np, Th 57-2 Np, Po, Th 

1969 Po Np, Th Np, Po, Th 

1970 Po Np, Th Np, Th 

1971 Po Np 

 June 30, 1972 Np 

Legend

57-1 Year and operational area previously evaluated in SEC-00057-1, covered by the HHS 2007 SEC 

class designation, and now covered by SEC-00152 

57-2 Year and operational area previously evaluated in SEC-00057-2, covered by the HHS 2008 SEC 

class designation, and now covered by SEC-00152 

Po Polonium operations associated with the SEC-00152 petition evaluation 

Th Thorium operations associated with the SEC-00152 petition evaluation 

Np Neptunium operations associated with the SEC-00152 petition evaluation 

* Begins October 1, 1945 # Begins May 1, 1948 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

19 of 41

4.4 Site Locations Associated with Radiological Operations 

Through the course of ongoing dose reconstruction, NIOSH has determined that the Hanford sitespecific and claimant-specific data available for the time period of this evaluation are insufficient to 

allow NIOSH to characterize worker movements across the site, or between the 100, 200, and 300 

Areas. NIOSH is unable to accurately assess whether an energy employee, or class of employees, did, 

or did not, potentially enter specific Areas of the Hanford site during defined periods of time; 

therefore, NIOSH cannot define individual worker exposure scenarios based on Hanford site Areas. 

4.5 Job Descriptions Affected by Radiological Operations 

As stated in Section 4.4, through the course of ongoing dose reconstruction, NIOSH has determined 

that the Hanford site-specific and claimant-specific data available for the time period of this 

evaluation are insufficient to allow NIOSH to characterize worker movements across the site, or 

between the 100, 200, and 300 Areas. The data available to NIOSH on a claim-specific level are also 

often insufficient for NIOSH to limit a worker’s potential exposure scenarios based on job titles 

and/or job assignments. The areas associated with this evaluation, as summarized in Section 4.3 

above, include all areas of the Hanford site, and NIOSH is unable to eliminate any specific worker 

from any of the listed potential exposure scenarios based on worker job descriptions. 

5.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class 

The primary data used for determining internal exposures are derived from personal monitoring data, 

such as urinalyses, fecal samples, and whole-body counting results. If these are unavailable, the air 

monitoring data from breathing zone and general area monitoring are used to estimate the potential 

internal exposure. If personal monitoring and breathing zone area monitoring are unavailable, internal 

exposures can sometimes be estimated using more general area monitoring, process information, and 

information characterizing and quantifying the source term. 

This same hierarchy is used for determining the external exposures to the cancer site. Personal 

monitoring data from film badges or thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are the primary data used 

to determine such external exposures. If there are no personal monitoring data, exposure rate surveys, 

process knowledge, and source term modeling can sometimes be used to reconstruct the potential 

exposure. 

A more detailed discussion of the information required for dose reconstruction can be found in 

OCAS-IG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, and OCAS-IG-002, Internal 

Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline. These documents are available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasdose.html. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

20 of 41

5.1 Data Capture Efforts and Sources Reviewed 

In addition to examining its Site Research Database (SRDB) to locate documents supporting the 

evaluation of the proposed class, NIOSH identified and reviewed numerous data sources to locate 

information relevant to determining the feasibility of dose reconstruction for the class of employees 

proposed for this petition. This included determining the availability of information on personnel 

monitoring, workplace monitoring, and radiological source term data. 

NIOSH data capture efforts for the Hanford site focused on site and DOE data bases, DOE Office of 

Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), DOE OpenNet, NRC Agencywide Document Access 

and Management (ADAMS), and worker interviews. NIOSH conducted eight organized site visits in 

2007, and five in 2008, in an attempt to gather documents and data relevant to dose reconstruction of 

Hanford claims. NIOSH’s SRDB currently contains over 18,000 documents and subdocuments 

associated with the Hanford site. Attachment One contains a summary of Hanford data gathering 

efforts and documents. 

5.2 Worker Interviews 

To obtain additional information, NIOSH interviewed and/or contacted 15 former Hanford employees. 

The purpose of the interviews was to gain additional first-hand information from people who worked 

at the Hanford facility. 

 Personal Communication, 2008a, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Shift 

Supervisor; Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 23-25 & 29-30, 2008; SRDB 

Ref ID: 41272

 Personal Communication, 2008b, Personal Communication with Chemist; Telephone and email 

contact by ORAU Team; January 14 & 17, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41268

 Personal Communication, 2008c, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Program 

Manager; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 25, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41269

 Personal Communication, 2008d, Personal Communication with Retired Hanford Employee; 

Email contact by ORAU Team; September 4, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 48378

 Personal Communication, 2008e, Personal Communication with Retired Research Chemist; Inperson communication by ORAU Team; July 24, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 46685

 Personal Communication, 2009a, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist; In-person 

communication by ORAU Team; March 5, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 60977

 Personal Communication, 2009b, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Manager; 

Telephone communication by ORAU Team; April 24, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 64482

 Personal Communication, 2008f, Personal Communication with Retired Hanford Employee; 

Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 8-14, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41265
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

21 of 41

 Personal Communication, 2008g, Personal Communication with Semi-Retired Operator and 

Engineer; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 14, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41266

 Personal Communication, 2008h, Personal Communication with Retired Radiological Engineer; 

Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 16, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41267

 Personal Communication, 2008i, Personal Communication with Retired Program Manager; 

Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 7, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41263 

 Personal Communication, 2008j, Personal Communication with Retired Specialist from the 

Whole-Body Counting Program; Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 7, 2008; 

SRDB Ref ID: 41263 

 Personal Communication, 2008k, Personal Communication with Retired Westinghouse Hanford 

Company Employee; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 14, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 

41264

 Personal Communication, 2008l, Personal Communication with Retired Hanford Employee; Email 

contact by ORAU Team; September 5, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 48446 

 Personal Communication, 2008m, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Manager 

from Hanford; Telephone interview by ORAUT Team; December 16, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 55669 

5.3 Internal Personnel Monitoring Data 

This section describes internal personnel monitoring data. 

5.3.1 Polonium Internal Personnel Monitoring Data 

A specific bioassay procedure for detection of polonium-210 in urine was developed at Hanford in 

1948, upon the occasion of two workers becoming externally contaminated from a leaking PoBe 

source (Thorburn, 1948). There are no entries in the Radiological Exposure (REX) database for 

polonium bioassay until February 1968. Beginning in 1968 through July 1969, there are entries in 

REX associated with the Pacific Northwest Lab program for investigating polonium-210 

microspheres. Following the cessation of the microsphere project, routine polonium bioassay results 

in the REX database were found for the period between September 1972 and January 1983. 

5.3.2 Thorium Internal Personnel Monitoring Data 

The August 1955 monthly report of the Radiological Sciences Department, Biophysics Section, states 

that “Improvements were made in the bioassay procedure for thorium in urine. . . . This and other 

improved techniques increased the precision of the results so that the detection limit (90% confidence) 

for duplicate analyses is 0.077 μg...” (Rad Sciences Monthly Report, August 1955, p. 24). Although 

a urinalysis method was available for use prior and after this date, there is no evidence in the present 

REX database of thorium urinalyses samples being obtained from workers. NIOSH is unable to 

determine whether this is because no samples were obtained or because the results were not entered 

into the predecessor (to REX) electronic database. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

22 of 41

Battelle Northwest Radiation Protection Department monthly reports were reviewed for months from 

1965-1967 when thorium fuel failures occurred, and for months after fuel failures. These reports 

acknowledged “possible intake of other radioisotopes” (other than plutonium), but specific data were 

not found, so it is unknown whether these other isotopes may have been thorium. No other data were 

found in the reports that indicated any thorium monitoring or measuring was performed. 

During 1964 through 1969, thorium-232 was specifically listed in the whole-body count records of 

some individuals (also one individual in 1962, and two individuals in 1963). Interviews of the WholeBody Counting Program Manager circa 1958-63 and a specialist at the facility who started in 1969 did 

not provide any insight into how the thorium counts were performed (Personal Communication, 

2008i; Personal Communication, 2008j). Literature and document searches for any documentation by 

others who worked at the Whole-Body Counting facility or for the Internal Dosimetry Program during 

the 1960s also provided no new information about in vivo counting for thorium. 

5.3.3 Neptunium Internal Personnel Monitoring Data 

There is no record of bioassay for neptunium-237 in the Hanford REX database prior to 1972 (four 

baseline samples in 1972). A letter from R. H. Wilson, dated July 6, 1960, to Jack Gillespie at Union 

Carbide Nuclear Company states that “we [Hanford] do not have a routine bioassay program for 

neptunium; however if bioassay sampling was necessary for this element we would probably carry out 

the following procedure: ...“ (Wilson, 1960). A procedure was apparently attached to the letter 

(originally), but the attachment was not found by NIOSH. A procedure was developed in 1960, which 

may have been the one Wilson referred to; the procedure was described in the Radiological Chemistry 

Operations Annual Report for 1960 (Rad Chemistry Operation Annual Report, 1960). The procedure 

used neptunium separation followed by electrodeposition and alpha-track counting in the same 

manner as was used for plutonium urinalysis samples, with essentially the same sensitivity (0.05 

dpm/24-hr sample). 

Extraction of neptunium-enriched nitrate solution from PUREX resulted in purified neptunium 

product having low levels of contaminants, with the activity of plutonium being only a small fraction 

of the neptunium activity. Therefore, during the part of the process involving conversion of 

neptunium nitrate to oxide, and especially loading the neptunium product into shipping containers, an 

intake of the neptunium would not have been readily detected by plutonium bioassay. 

5.4 External Personnel Monitoring Data 

This evaluation responds to a petition based on NIOSH determining that internal radiation exposures 

to purified polonium, thorium, and neptunium could not be reconstructed. In light of this conclusion, 

NIOSH did not perform an evaluation of external monitoring data for the period of October 1, 1944 

through June 30, 1972. Although this evaluation draws no specific conclusions about the external 

data and the ability to bound external dose for the class under evaluation, NIOSH has drawn following 

general conclusion: available external monitoring data may be used in accordance with existing 

procedures on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

23 of 41

5.5 Workplace Monitoring Data 

This section describes workplace monitoring data. 

5.5.1 Polonium Workplace Monitoring Data 

A continuous aerosol monitor was installed in May 1968, expressly to sample for polonium (PNL 

Monthly Report, May 1968); however, NIOSH has been unable to locate the associated monitoring 

results. NIOSH has found no relevant workplace monitoring records specific to polonium during the 

period of this SEC evaluation. 

5.5.2 Thorium Workplace Monitoring Data 

Monthly and weekly reports beginning in 1946 were reviewed to determine the activities that were 

conducted at Hanford relevant to measuring and monitoring for thorium use in the 100, 200, and 300 

Areas. Air samples were taken and reported in all areas over various times. Samples were reported in 

concentrations for plutonium or uranium. NIOSH found no sample results reporting thorium 

specifically. 

In January 1954, when the fuel failure occurred in H reactor, there is no evidence that any special 

monitoring was performed for thorium. Routine and special radiological surveys were performed, as 

well as air monitoring, but NIOSH found no data to indicate that thorium was monitored. Airborne 

activity was reported in units of uCi/cc in several of the reports reviewed. The activity of the water 

leaving the retention basin was monitored, but those results are provided for average beta dose rate 

(mrep/hr); average gamma dose rate (mr/hr); and average total dose rate (mrep/hr). NIOSH has 

obtained no information regarding the instruments used for any of these measurements. The February 

1954 monthly report indicated that bioassay measurements were made for plutonium, fission products, 

and uranium (Rad Sciences Monthly Report, February 1954). Contamination surveys were made and 

reported as dose rates in rads/hr at 1 inch. Personnel monitoring included the use of gamma pencils, 

slow neutron pencils, beta-gamma film badges, and fast neutron badges. Reactor effluent water 

studies were conducted, but NIOSH has found no data indicating that the presence of thorium was 

either tested for or identified. 

During interviews with NIOSH, site health physicists who worked at the reactors did not recall 

monitoring for thorium (Personal Communication, 2008i, Personal Communication 2008j; Personal 

Communication, 2008k). They did state that when removing failed fuel, there were no workers on the 

back face of the reactors because the dose rates were so high. The dose rates on the front face of the 

reactor were also extremely high and the workers were generally limited to about thirty minutes of 

exposure. Respirators were worn during discharge of failed fuel; however, they were not required to 

be worn for normal discharge of fuel. 

5.5.3 Neptunium Workplace Monitoring Data 

NIOSH has found no relevant workplace monitoring records specific to neptunium during the period 

of this SEC evaluation. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

24 of 41

5.6 Radiological Source Term Data 

The source term information available to NIOSH that is relevant to this evaluation was presented in 

Section 4.1. NIOSH lacks sufficient source term information that would allow it to estimate all 

potential polonium, thorium, or neptunium exposures to which the proposed class may have been 

exposed. 

6.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class 

42 C.F.R. § 83.14(b) states that HHS will consider a NIOSH determination that there was insufficient 

information to complete a dose reconstruction, as indicated in this present case, to be sufficient,

without further consideration, to conclude that it is not feasible to estimate the levels of radiation 

doses of individual members of the class with sufficient accuracy. 

In the case of a petition submitted to NIOSH under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(b), NIOSH has already 

determined that a dose reconstruction cannot be completed for an employee at the DOE or AWE 

facility. This determination by NIOSH provides the basis for the petition by the affected claimant. 

Per § 83.14(a), the NIOSH-proposed class defines those employees who, based on completed 

research, are similarly affected and for whom, as a class, dose reconstruction is similarly not feasible. 

In accordance with § 83.14(a), NIOSH may establish a second class of co-workers at the facility for 

whom NIOSH believes that dose reconstruction is similarly infeasible, but for whom additional 

research and analysis is required. If so identified, NIOSH would address this second class in a 

separate SEC evaluation rather than delay consideration of the claim currently under evaluation (see 

Section 10). This would allow NIOSH, the Board, and HHS to complete, without delay, their 

consideration of the class that includes a claimant for whom NIOSH has already determined a dose 

reconstruction cannot be completed, and whose only possible remedy under EEOICPA is the addition 

of a class of employees to the SEC. 

This section of the report summarizes research findings by which NIOSH determined that it lacked 

sufficient information to complete the relevant dose reconstruction and on which basis it has defined 

the class of employees for which dose reconstruction is not feasible. NIOSH’s determination relies on 

the same statutory and regulatory criteria that govern consideration of all SEC petitions. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

25 of 41

6.1 Feasibility of Estimating Internal Exposures 

NIOSH has evaluated the available personnel and workplace monitoring data and source term 

information and has determined that there are insufficient data for estimating internal exposures, as 

described below. 

As presented in Section 5.3, NIOSH has no indications that the Hanford site implemented routine or 

special bioassay programs sufficient to detect intakes of purified polonium, purified thorium, or 

purified neptunium during the period being evaluated. In the absence of adequate in vitro or in vivo

bioassay, NIOSH also lacks sufficient workplace monitoring or source term data to estimate potential 

internal exposures to the listed exposure scenarios. The exposure scenarios evaluated include the 

following areas and time periods: 

Polonium: 

 Area 100 from January 1, 1945 through December 31, 1971 

 Area 200 from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1966 

 Area 300 from January 1, 1963 through December 31, 1969 

Thorium: 

 Area 100 from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1968 

 Area 200 from January 1, 1965 through December 31, 1970 

 Area 300 from October 1, 1945 through December 31, 1970 

Neptunium: 

 Area 200 from May 1, 1948 through June 30, 1972 

 Area 300 from January 1, 1966 through December 31, 1970

Additionally, as designated by HHS, NIOSH lacks sufficient bioassay or in-situ monitoring data from 

the onset of Hanford radiological operations in October 1943 through August 1946 to allow for direct 

reconstruction of an individual’s internal dose (HHS, 2007). Combining the time periods associated 

with the polonium, thorium, and neptunium operations listed above with the 2007 HHS designated 

SEC class for the 300 Area for the period October 1943 through August 1946, yields a summative 

time period for identified internal dose reconstruction infeasibilities of October 1, 1943 through June 

30, 1972. 

As presented in Section 4, NIOSH has determined that the Hanford site-specific and claimant-specific 

data available for the listed exposure scenarios and time periods are insufficient to allow NIOSH to: 

(1) characterize worker movements across the site or between the 100, 200, and 300 Areas; or (2) 

limit a worker’s potential exposure scenarios based on job titles and/or job assignments. The 

operational Areas associated with this evaluation include the 100 Area, the 200 Area, and the 300 

Area of the Hanford site. Due to undocumented worker movements across site and limited claimantspecific information, NIOSH is unable to eliminate any specific worker or class of workers from any 

of the listed potential exposure scenarios based on worker job descriptions. NIOSH is not able to 

define the proposed class of workers based on Area-specific parameters. NIOSH therefore proposes 

that all Hanford workers be included in the proposed class for the time period from October 1, 1943 

through June 30, 1972. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

26 of 41

NIOSH does not have access to sufficient personnel monitoring, workplace monitoring, or source 

term data to estimate potential internal exposures to polonium, thorium, or neptunium during the 

period of from January 1, 1945 through June 30, 1972. Consequently, NIOSH finds that it is not 

feasible to estimate, with sufficient accuracy, internal exposures to polonium, thorium, or neptunium 

and resulting doses for the class of employees covered by this evaluation. 

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct internal radiation doses for the 

period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, NIOSH intends to use any internal monitoring 

data that may become available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing 

NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures). Dose reconstructions for individuals employed 

at Hanford during the period from October 1, 1943 through December 31, 1972, but who do not 

qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate. 

6.2 Feasibility of Estimating External Exposures 

This evaluation responds to a petition based on NIOSH determining that internal radiation exposures 

to purified polonium, thorium, and neptunium could not be reconstructed for a dose reconstruction 

referred to NIOSH by the DOL. As noted above, HHS will consider this determination to be 

sufficient without further consideration to determine that it is not feasible to estimate the levels of 

radiation doses of individual members of the class with sufficient accuracy. Consequently, it is not 

necessary for NIOSH to fully evaluate the feasibility of reconstructing external radiation exposures for 

the class of workers covered by this report. 

Adequate reconstruction of medical dose is likely to be feasible by using claimant-favorable 

assumptions in the technical information bulletin titled, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally 

Related Diagnostic X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006) and Hanford site profile documents. 

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for all workers 

for the period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, NIOSH intends to use any external 

monitoring data that may become available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using 

existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures). Dose reconstructions for individuals 

employed at Hanford during the period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, but who do not 

qualify for inclusion in the SEC may be performed using these data as appropriate. 

6.3 Class Parameters Associated with Infeasibility 

Combining the time periods associated with the operations listed above with the HHS designated SEC 

class for the 300 Area for the period October 1943 through August 1946 yields a summative time 

period for identified dose reconstruction infeasibilities of October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972. 

Therefore, NIOSH recommends that the class include the period from October 1, 1943 through June 

30, 1972. 

The operational areas associated with this evaluation include the 100 Area, the 200 Area, and the 300 

Area of the Hanford site. Due to undocumented worker movements across the site and limited 

claimant-specific information during the period under evaluation, NIOSH is unable to eliminate any 

specific worker from any of the potential exposure scenarios based on worker job descriptions. 

NIOSH recommends that the class definition include all Areas and all covered workers during the 

specified time period. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

27 of 41

7.0 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00152 

There are currently two classes of Hanford workers associated with the previous NIOSH evaluations 

of SEC petition SEC-00057, for which the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has 

designated inclusion in the Special Exposure Cohort. This report evaluates the feasibility for 

completing dose reconstructions for employees at Hanford from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 

1972. NIOSH determined that during this period members of this class may have received radiation 

exposures as previously determined for the existing SEC classes (HHS, 2007; HHS, 2008) as well as 

radiation exposures from intakes of polonium, thorium, and neptunium. NIOSH lacks sufficient 

information, which includes biological monitoring data, sufficient air monitoring information, or 

sufficient process and radiological source information that would allow it to estimate the potential 

internal exposures to which the proposed class may have been exposed. NIOSH determined that it is 

likely feasible to reconstruct with sufficient accuracy the occupational medical dose received by 

Hanford workers. 

NIOSH has documented herein that it cannot complete the dose reconstructions related to this petition. 

The basis of this finding demonstrates that NIOSH does not have access to sufficient information to 

estimate either the maximum radiation dose incurred by any member of the class or to estimate such 

radiation doses more precisely than a maximum dose estimate. 

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed at 

Hanford during the period from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, but who do not qualify for 

inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these data as appropriate. 

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00152 

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14(b) and § 83.13(c)(3). Pursuant to these requirements, if 

it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH 

must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered 

the health of members of the class. The regulations require NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If 

the occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

28 of 41

NIOSH has determined that members of the class were not exposed to radiation during a discrete 

incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear 

criticality incidents. However, the evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates that some workers in 

the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures through intakes of polonium, thorium, 

and neptunium and from direct exposure to radioactive materials. Consequently, NIOSH is specifying 

that health was endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation who were employed for a 

number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for this 

class or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other 

classes of employees in the SEC. 

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00152 

The evaluation defines a single class of employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses 

with sufficient accuracy. This class includes all employees of the Department of Energy, its 

predecessor agencies, and its contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Hanford site in 

Richland, Washington, from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination 

with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included 

in the Special Exposure Cohort. 

10.0 Evaluation of Second Similar Class 

In accordance with § 83.14(a), NIOSH may establish a second class of co-workers at the facility, 

similar to the class defined in Section 9.0, for whom NIOSH believes that dose reconstruction may not 

be feasible, and for whom additional research and analyses is required. If a second class is identified, 

it would require additional research and analyses. Such a class would be addressed in a separate SEC 

evaluation rather than delay consideration of the current claim. At this time, NIOSH has not identified 

a second similar class of employees at the Hanford site for whom dose reconstruction may not be 

feasible. 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

29 of 41

11.0 References 

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391 

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392 

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001 

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000; as amended; OCAS website 

100 Area Monthly Report, February 1945, Monthly Report on 100 Areas-February 1945; F. A. 

Valente; SRDB Ref ID: 5126, pp. 2-6 

100 Area Monthly Report, May 1945, Progress Report of the 100 Area for the Monthly Period Ending 

May 25, 1945; SRDB Ref ID: 5126, pp. 7-13 

200 Area Monthly Report, May 1948, Monthly Report for 200 Area-May 1948; J. T. Christy; SRDB 

Ref ID: 50735, pp. 52-63 

200 Area Monthly Report, June 1948, Monthly Report for 200 East and West Areas-June 1948; J. T. 

Christy; SRDB Ref ID: 50735, pp. 64-74 

200 Area Monthly Report, June 1966, Monthly Report for 200 Area-June 1966; J. T. Christy; SRDB 

Ref ID: 35857 

AHF, 2009, Atomic History Timeline 1945—Chronology for the Origin of Atomic Weapons, website; 

http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=289&Itemid=203; 

The Atomic Heritage Foundation; last accessed: September 11, 2009 

ARHCO, 1971, PUREX Process Operation and Performance 1970 Thoria Campaign; Atlantic 

Richfield Hanford Company (ARHCO); June 3, 1971; SRDB Ref ID: 60827 

Briggs, 2001, Historical Time Line and Information about the Hanford Site; J. D. Briggs, Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory; May 2001; SRDB Ref ID: 12856 

Brugge, 1954, Hanford Thorium Experience; R. O. Brugge; December 8, 1954; SRDB Ref ID: 34224 

Buckingham, 1959, Palm Purification Run 12-58; J. S. Buckingham; January 23, 1959; SRDB Ref 

ID: 48988 

Buckingham, 1961, Purification of REDOX Brandy; J. S. Buckingham; November 17, 1961; SRDB 

Ref ID: 49003 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

30 of 41

Buckingham, 1963, Measurements of REDOX Produced by Neptunium; J. S. Buckingham; March 25, 

1963; SRDB Ref ID: 34188 

DeNeal, 1970, Historical Events-Single Pass Reactors and Fuels Fabrication; D. L. DeNeal; April 

10, 1970; SRDB Ref ID: 333 

Duckworth, 1963, PUREX Neptunium Recovery and Purification Information Manual; J. P. 

Duckworth; April 1, 1963; SRDB Ref ID: 49010 

EPA, 2001, EPA Superfund Record of Decision: Hanford 300-Area (USDOE), EPA/ROD/R10-

01/119/2001; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); April 4, 2001; SRDB Ref ID: 41284 

Essig, 1965, Monsanto Research Corporation Mound Laboratory Annual Review-1965; Gustave A. 

Essig and David L. Scott; 1965; SRDB Ref ID: 2305 

Essig, 1968, Monsanto Research Corporation Mound Laboratory Annual Review-1968; Gustave A. 

Essig and Ralph L. Neubert; 1968; SRDB Ref ID: 2189 

Geier, 1961, PUREX Plant Birch Isolation Run-April 1961; R. G. Geier and H. C. Rathvon; June 20, 

1961; SRDB Ref ID: 48996 

Gerber, 1992, Past Practices Technical Characterization Study—300 Area—Hanford Site; M. S. 

Gerber; December 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 13724 

Gerber, 1993, A Brief History of the PUREX and UO3 Facilities, WHC-MR-0437; M. S. Gerber; 

November 1993; SRDB Ref ID: 14586 

GlobalSecurity, 2005, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)-Polonium, web page; 

GlobalSecurity.Org; last updated April 27, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 72383 

Gydesen, 1954, Hanford Experience with Thorium; S. P. Gydesen, Technical Information Unit; 

March 26, 1954; SRDB Ref ID: 34206 

Gydesen, 1993, Fuel-Element Failures in Hanford Single-Pass Reactors 1944-1971; S. P. Gydesen; 

July 1993; SRDB Ref ID: 41301 

Hanford Engineer Works Monthly Report, April, 1945, Hanford Engineer Works Monthly ReportApril 1945; May 14, 1945; SRDB Ref ID: 5055 

Hanford History, 1991, A History of Major Hanford Facilities and Processes Involving Radioactive 

Material, Pacific Northwest Laboratory; PNL-6964 HEDR UC-707; March 1991; SRDB Ref ID: 

11569, pdf p. 65 

Hanford History, 2002, History of the Plutonium Production Facilities at the Hanford Site Historic 

District, 1943-1990, Hanford Cultural and Historic Resources Program, U.S. Department of Energy; 

DOE/RL-97-1047; June 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 27666 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

31 of 41

Hanford Lab Operations Monthly Activities Report, February 1957, Hanford Laboratories Operation 

Monthly Activities Report-February 1957; compiled by Operation Managers; March 15, 1957; SRDB 

Ref ID: 53369 

HHS, 2007, HHS Designation of Additional Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, Designating a Class of 

Employees from Hanford Engineer Works Richland, Washington; Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS); September 12, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 72277 

HHS, 2008, HHS Designation of Additional Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under the 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, Designating a Class of 

Employees from Hanford Nuclear Reservation Richland, Washington; Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS); May 30, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 72278 

HI Monthly Report, March 1945, H. I. Section Report for March 1945; H. M. Parker; March 30, 1945; 

SRDB Ref ID: 37381, pp. 13-21 

Isochem, 1967, PUREX Plant Thorium Process Operation Report, ISO-419; Isochem Inc.; December 

1967; SRDB Ref ID: 31708 

Judson, 1958, The Recovery of Neptunium-237 and Production of Plutonium-238 at Hanford; B. F. 

Judson; June 27, 1958; SRDB Ref ID: 48985 

Malody, 1971a, Analysis of Neptunium Batch, PUREX No. 3-71; C. W. Malody; September 20, 1971; 

SRDB Ref ID: 34215 

Malody, 1971b, Analysis of Neptunium Batch, PUREX No. 6-71; C. W. Malody; October 13, 1971; 

SRDB Ref ID: 34216 

Malody, 1971c, Analysis of Neptunium Batch, PUREX No. 9-71 and 10-71; C. W. Malody; November 

23, 1971; SRDB Ref ID: 34218 

Malody, 1972a, Analysis of Neptunium Batch, PUREX No. 72-1 and 72-2; C. W. Malody; February 

29, 1972; SRDB Ref ID: 34220 

Malody, 1972b, Analysis of Neptunium Batch, PUREX No. 72-4 and 72-5; C. W. Malody; May 22, 

1972; SRDB Ref ID: 34179 

Monsanto, 1972, Monsanto Research Corporation Summary Report-1971; Monsanto Research 

Corporation; January 1972; SRDB Ref ID: 2343 

Nason, 1966, Semiannual Technical Summary Report-January 1 to June 30 1966 for Boston, Dayton, 

and Mound Laboratories; H. K. Nason, D. L. Scott, K. W. Easley, et. al; September 1, 1966; SRDB 

Ref ID: 2429 

NIOSH, 2007, SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-1, Hanford; National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); May 15, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 72279 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

32 of 41

NIOSH, 2008, SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-2, Hanford; National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); March 26, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 72305 

ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupationally Related Diagnostic X-Ray 

Procedures, Rev. 03 PC-1; Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU); Oak Ridge, Tennessee; 

December 21, 2005; SRDB Ref ID: 20220 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-2, Hanford Site-Site Description, Rev. 01; Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

(ORAU); Oak Ridge, Tennessee; May 17, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 31859 

Personal Communication, 2008a, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Shift 

Supervisor; Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 23-25 & 29-30, 2008; SRDB Ref 

ID: 41272

Personal Communication, 2008b, Personal Communication with Chemist; Telephone and email 

contact by ORAU Team; January 14 & 17, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41268

Personal Communication, 2008c, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Program 

Manager; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 25, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41269

Personal Communication, 2008d, Personal Communication with Retired Hanford Employee; Email 

contact by ORAU Team; September 4, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 48378

Personal Communication, 2008e, Personal Communication with Retired Research Chemist; In-person 

communication by ORAU Team; July 24, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 46685

Personal Communication, 2008f, Personal Communication with Retired Hanford Employee; 

Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 8-14, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41265 

Personal Communication, 2008g, Personal Communication with Semi-Retired Operator and 

Engineer; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 14, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41266 

Personal Communication, 2008h, Personal Communication with Retired Radiological Engineer; 

Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 16, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41267

Personal Communication, 2008i, Personal Communication with Retired Program Manager; 

Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 7, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41263 

Personal Communication, 2008j, Personal Communication with Retired Specialist from the WholeBody Counting Program; Telephone and email contact by ORAU Team; January 7, 2008; SRDB Ref 

ID: 41263 

Personal Communication, 2008k, Personal Communication with Retired Westinghouse Hanford 

Company Employee; Telephone Interview by ORAU Team; January 14, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 41264 

Personal Communication, 2008l, Personal Communication with Retired Hanford Employee; Email 

contact by ORAU Team; September 5, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 48446 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

33 of 41

Personal Communication, 2008m, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Manager from 

Hanford; Telephone interview by ORAUT Team; December 16, 2008; SRDB Ref ID: 55669 

Personal Communication, 2009a, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist; In-person 

communication by ORAU Team; March 5, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 60977

Personal Communication, 2009b, Personal Communication with Retired Chemist and Manager; 

Telephone communication by ORAU Team; April 24, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 64482 

PNL Monthly Report, May 1968, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Monthly Activities Report-May 1968 

for the Division of Production and Hanford Plant Assistance Programs; Staff of Battelle-Northwest; 

June 1968; SRDB Ref ID: 58595 

PUREX, 1993, Brief History of the PUREX and UO3 Facilities, Hanford site publication, WHC-MR0437; September 1993; SRDB Ref ID: 14586, pdf p. 7 

Rad Chemistry Operation Annual Report, 1960, Radiological Chemistry Operation Annual ReportJanuary-December, 1960; J. M. Nielsen; January 15, 1961; SRDB Ref ID: 48994 

Rad Monitoring Unit Monthly Report, June 1955, Radiation Monitoring Unit of the Radiological 

Sciences Department Monthly Report-June 1955; A. J. Stevens; June 30, 1955; SRDB Ref ID: 34280 

Rad Monitoring Unit Monthly Report, August 1955, Radiation Monitoring Unit of the Radiological 

Sciences Department Monthly Report-August 1955; A. J. Stevens; August 31, 1955; SRDB Ref ID: 

34354 

Rad Sciences Monthly Report, February 1954, Radiological Sciences Department Report-February 

1954; H. M. Parker; March 3, 1954; SRDB Ref ID: 34313 

Rad Sciences Monthly Report, August 1955, Radiological Sciences Department Monthly Section 

Reports-August 1955; M. L. Mickelson, P. R. McMurray, W. A. McAdams, D. W. Pearce, and H. A. 

Kornberg; September 6, 1955; SRDB Ref ID: 34355 

Sheppard, 1957, Palm Recovery Progress Report; J. C. Sheppard and G. V. Becker; June 4, 1957; 

SRDB Ref ID: 48977 

Smith, 1945, Report: Study of Myrnalloy; E. A. Smith; December 18, 1945; SRDB Ref ID: 60822 

Smith, 1946, Special Sample Request No. 3, OGT No. 10,071 “Myrnalloy”; E. A. Smith; Aril 11, 

1946; SRDB Ref ID: 60823 

Thorburn, 1948, Investigation of Polonium in Urine; Thorburn; November 17, 1948; SRDB Ref ID: 

34806 

Tilley, 1945, Production of Polonium, correspondence to Mr. W. O. Simon; J. N. Tilley; February 9, 

1945; SRDB Ref ID: 22757 

Travis, 1958, Status Report on Palmolive Program September-December 1958; J. E. Travis; 

December 30, 1958; SRDB Ref ID: 48842 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL Hanford

34 of 41

Unknown author, 1963, Problems Contributing to Reduced Neptunium Shipments FY 1963; unknown 

author; 1963; SRDB Ref ID: 48966 

Various authors, 1962-1965, Various Brandy Shipping Documents from April 1962-January 1965; 

various authors; April 1962-January 1965; SRDB Ref ID: 44761 

Various authors, 1966, Various 1966 Shipping and Receiving Documents of Neptunium Nitrate 

Solution; various authors; 1966; SRDB Ref ID: 48971 

Various authors, 1967-1972, Various Neptunium Shipping Records from 1967-1972; various authors; 

1967-1972; SRDB Ref ID: 48974 

Walser, 1978, PUREX Process Operation and Performance 1970 Thoria Campaign; R. L. Walser; 

February 1978; SRDB Ref ID: 27671 

Wende, 1946a, Production Test Number 305-9-P Poisoning Effectiveness and Uniformity of 

Myrnalloy Slugs, C. W. J. Wende; February 19, 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 60813 

Wende, 1946b, Special Irradiation of Myrnalloy Request 3-1 Production Test Number 105-49-P 

Supplement B; C. W. J. Wende; July 19, 1946; SRDB Ref ID: 60811 

Wheelwright, 1970, Recovery and Purification of Plutonium and Neptunium from Irradiated NPO2 AI 

and NPO2 Graphite Targets; E. J. Wheelwright, Battelle-Northwest; September 4, 1970; SRDB Ref 

ID: 35853 

Wilson, 1960, Potential Bioassay Procedure, correspondence to Jack Gillespie; R. H. Wilson; July 6, 

1960; SRDB Ref ID: 50219 
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

Attachment 1: Data Capture Synopsis 

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description C

Primary Site/Company Name: Hanford 

DOE; 1942-present Other Site Names:

Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) 

Air samples, ALARA program, americium and neptunium recovery processes, annual and repetitive neutron survey assignment and exposure reports, bioassay reports and procedures, neutron badge log sheets, chest Xray requirements, concentration neptunium-237 relative to plutonium-239, radiation overexposure and contaminated injury events, departmental progress and activity reports, dose data from Hanford DuPont personnel meter exposure records applicable to the Mancuso Study, DTPA treatment data, environmental data, exposure evaluations, technical basis manuals, fission products separation from urine salts, highly enriched fuel program, hot particle data, incident investigations, internal dose evaluation procedures, neptunium data, neutron and gamma field surveys, neutron database, neutron dosimeter data, production of U-233 from thorium and production of polonium, radioactive shipment records, radiological surveys and log sheets, reactor power levels, safety analysis reports, special work 

permits, stack gas particulates report, thorium experience, uranium bioassay program, and a whole body counting manual. 

07/0

State Contacted: NA Note: Contacting the state was not considered necessary since Hanford is 

an active DOE site and cooperated with relevant data collection. 

09/0

CDC Interlibrary Loan Radiation safety in the Manhattan Project. 04/0Claimant Environmental monitoring data, study of uranium losses, in vivo cross 

comparison studies, how plutonium specimen disintegrates under pressure, behavior and characteristics of radioactive debris from Chinese nuclear 

weapons tests, and information on reducing the concentration of radioisotopes in effluent water. 

06/0

Curtiss-Wright Plutonium Fuel Development Laboratory special procedure, packaging 

archive waste containers for shipment, and shipping records and orders. 

04/2

Dade Moeller & Associates Investigation of personal monitoring film, accidental irradiated fuel 

discharge from N Reactor, radiation exposures of Hanford workers dying 

from cancer and other causes, Hanford historical production history of all reactors, separations at the Purex Plant, and organizational charts. 

08/1

Department of Energy (DOE) Germantown Calculations and poisonous effects of various materials, communications 

between AEC and Westinghouse, procedures and policies, discussion with Westinghouse personnel regarding oxide fuel materials, feasibility of Hanford to provide U-233, fission distribution in uranium oxide pellets, 

06/1

35 of 41
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description 

C

forecast for discharge of thorium, Hanford codes, irradiation of thorium, Manhattan District history books, monthly material accountability, NYOO uranium operations flow chart, organizational charts, radiation exposures, thorium as pile flattening material, trip reports, U-233 production, waste recovery centrifuge test, and radiation surveys. 

Department of Labor/Paragon Vitrification of Niagara Falls Storage Site residues, progress reports, 

shipment of thorium oxide slugs, tabulation of Sylvania's outstanding orders, and disposition of 763 reject Hanford slugs. 

12/3

DOE Argonne National Laboratory - East Evaluations of intake and deposition based on bioassay data, meetings on 

proposed high temperature oxide pile, and plutonium scrap processing. 

04/0

DOE General Atomics Nuclear material shipping and receiving reports, health physics reports, and 

Medical Department reports. 

01/0

DOE General Electric Vallecitos TLD and film badge technical information. 05/1DOE Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System (DDRS) 

Alpha hand monitoring, americium recovery, radiological surveys, attenuation of a neutron and gamma ray beam, calibrated neutron sources and area monitoring chambers, power levels versus Po-210 production, dosimetry and spectrometry of fast neutrons by radio-activation, dosimetry in the Hanford gamma irradiation facilities, double moderator neutron dosimeter, iodine release, sensitivities of reactor neutron flux monitors at B Reactor, measurements produced neptunium, integrated thermal neutron exposure, determination of the radon content of water, neptunium recovery, neutron dosimetry and irradiation of solids, neutron flux monitor detector, power and exposure levels of Hanford reactors, notes on dosimetry problems, production statistics of N Reactor operations, radiation exposure data, radiological incidents, safety analysis report, slow and fast neutrons, scintillation count-rate and dose-rate meter, monthly and weekly reports, thorium U-233 separation, and tritium exposures. 

04/3

DOE Hanford Downwinders Database 100 areas technical activities report, environs report, and a daily summary 

for the 200 west area. 

04/0

DOE Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Status report on Materials Testing Accelerator. 02/0DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites Decontamination and decommissioning of the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel 

Facility at Cheswick, PA and progress reports. 

10/2

DOE Legacy Management - Grand Junction Mixed waste oil by Hanford, C and D materials produced at Hanford, 

contract documents, concentrations of plutonium in soil, production reports, elimination of feed production at Linde and Electro Metallurgical, enriched uranium account report, extrusion of uranium for Hanford, history of 

07/1

36 of 41
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description 

C

refinery operations and site material accountability, Manhattan District history, metal requirements for X-10, monthly progress reports, waste characterization data and management of radioactive tank waste, rolled uranium and fabrication yields, scrap material from Chapman Valve, shipment of rods, spent nuclear fuel project 324 and 327 Buildings material classifications, and Tonawanda progress reports. 

DOE Legacy Management - MoundView (Fernald Holdings, includes Fernald Legal Database) 

Personnel at risk in plutonium-238 operations, re-irradiation of radium, effluent information system/onsite discharge information system, evaluation of high assay Pu-238 oxide for use in fabrication of plasma-fired microspheres, external radiation levels, development and use of actinium, Hanford wastes, production machining of uranium, incineration of radioactive solid wastes, Battelle occupational exposure history, production reports, radiological incidents, shipping documents, standard operating procedures, thorium accountability documents, U-233 as a contaminant in thorium nitrate solution, and a symposium on occupational health experience and practices in the uranium industry. 

11/2

DOE Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Isotopic content and specific activity of pile-produced plutonium, 

radioactive waste disposal and related issues, monitoring of certain personnel for internal plutonium contamination, and quantities and characteristics of the contact handled low-level mixed waste streams for the DOE complex. 

12/1

DOE Nevada Test Site Photographs of workers in protective clothing. 04/2DOE Oak Ridge Operations Vault Film badge and exposure correspondence. 06/2DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) 

Ionium, uranium-232, and thorium-228 properties, applications, and availability, survey of irradiation facilities, meeting on collection and measurement of radioactive air contaminants, preliminary hazards report for a reactor experiment at CANEL, and proposed Purex Separations Plant study. 

09/1

DOE OpenNet Absorption and translocation by plants of radioactive elements from 

"jangle" soil, human radiation experiments information, air pathway report, Columbia River pathway dosimetry report, fission product iodine during early Hanford operations, hematological effects on heavily irradiated Japanese fishermen, history of the Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute, Manhattan District history book, monthly activities, products, operations and progress reports, Newell Stannard interview with Robert Thomas, Bikini fall of 1978, plutonium release estimates, radiation dose estimates from Hanford radioactive material releases to the air and the 

02/2

37 of 41
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description 

C

Columbia River, radiological incidents, and a thyroid disease study. 

DOE OSTI Energy Citations Pinellas Plant feasibility study, radioactive waste shipments to Hanford, 

characterization of Uo-2 and Pu-O2 powders, process description for the retrieval of earth-covered transuranic waste containers, decontamination and decommissioning information, wrap module 1 sampling and analysis plan, and monthly activity reports. 

04/0

DOE OSTI Information Bridge Risk of transporting plutonium oxide and liquid plutonium nitrate, wastes 

in and around early reactors, contaminated sites and facilities within the DOE complex, environmental management report, external dosimetry technical basis, americium recovery and purification, fuel element technical manual, fuels preparation and operations monthly reports, hazard analysis for 300 area N Reactor fuel fabrication and storage facility, human radiation experiments, monthly processing and research reports, plutonium safety evaluation report, hazards evaluation for enriched uranium-thoria, processing E-metal in the 200 areas, production tests, protective measures for personnel manual, radiation control standards and procedures, radiation survey report, reprocessing uranium - molybdenum alloy fuels, survey of 

worldwide light water reactor experience with mixed uranium-plutonium oxide fuel, 300 area history, low-level waste vitrification melter, exponential pile measurements in graphite-uranium lattices, iodine-131 releases, and ionium for radioisotope preparation status report. 

11/1

DOE Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Radioactivity analysis reports, air samples, trace element analysis, ash 

results, power results, and sample data unspecified. 

06/1

DOE Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) 

External dosimetry technology TBD (2003). 10/0

DOE Savannah River Site Irradiation of thorium slugs, use of pocket dosimeters, progress reports, 

thorium irradiation program, exposure to gamma radiation, thorium slug failures, production summary 100 and 200 areas, dosimetry visitors cards, polonium production, health physics procedures, exposure data for Hanford test badges, Hanford film badges exposed in the plutonium facility at the Savannah River Site, Savannah River Site lab notebook, and a health physics methods logbook. 

01/2

DOE West Valley Demonstration Project Shipping of Pu product to Hanford. 11/2[Name redacted] Personal Files Procurement history and a monthly operations report. 11/0EML Library Hanford uranium bioassay program. 02/1Google Aero radioactivity survey and aerial geology of the Hanford area, B 07/2

38 of 41
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description 

C

Reactor museum association history of 100-B/C reactor operations, separation of the uranium isotopes by gaseous diffusion, General Atomics hot cell facility decontamination, monthly reports, health-physics, instrumentation, and radiation protection, history of the department of nuclear science and engineering, Manhattan Project history, nuclear weapons data-book, process of a chain reaction in uranium producing plutonium, Project Trinity, FUSRAP reports, annual site environmental report with radiological doses and releases, and U.S. nuclear weapons research, development, testing, and production. 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Individual interviews, history of the St. Louis Uranium Processing Plant, 

and a feasibility study for the St. Louis site. 

10/0

NARA - Atlanta Annual reports, review of the existing reactor confinement program at 

Hanford, assay of uranium by-product materials, contamination of express cars (Hanford shipment), Dragon Project irradiations, human chromosome aberrations, investigative report on X-ray overexposure, list of commission and contractor personnel by professional category, Madison Square area monthly accountability reports, employee monitoring, monthly progress reports, report on health and safety aspects of recycle material, DOE indoor 

radon study, summary of work done at Berkeley, fission of uranium-235 or plutonium-239, and product specifications. 

05/2

National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Feasibility studies of the correlation of lifetime health and mortality. 08/2New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 

Nickel plating of uranium slugs. 09/2

NRC Agencywide Document Access and Management (ADAMS) 

NRC's decommissioning procedures and criteria, environmental statement 

on the use of recycled plutonium in mixed oxide fuel in light water cooled reactors, and a survey of waste solidification process technologies. 

01/2

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Safe handling of unprocessed metal, DuPont employee roster, and Mancuso 

Study data. 

04/1

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) 

Analysis of ignition testing on K-west basin fuel, storage of highly enriched uranium, DOE Ohio sites recycled uranium project report, effects of rolling on the crystallography and metallography of uranium, excretion of Pu-239 in a patient with a plutonium contaminated injury, generation and flow of recycled uranium, highly enriched uranium working group report, list of classified documents, production and recovery of U-233 from thorium, reactor production tests, standardization of gold and indium foils and the absolute neutron flux determination, technical activities, research and development reports, testing prediction capabilities of an I-131 

08/0

39 of 41
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description 

C

terrestrial transport model, and USTUR active registrants living and deceased. 

ORAU Team Basis for thoron concentration and doses for thoria processing, bounding 

estimate of neutron dose based on measured photon dose around single pass reactors at Hanford, correspondence on the Mallinckrodt badge program, 

documented communication, dosimetry data, human radiation exposures related to nuclear weapons industries, annual reports, ORAU Team generated spreadsheets, radiation dose estimates and hazard evaluation for 

inhaled airborne radionuclides, Savannah River Site thorium processing timeline, study of atmospheric contamination in the Melt Plant, technical 

basis documents, and workplace measurements of neutron and photon doses. 

08/2

Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) 

Hanford environmental surveillance, ORAU Team project spreadsheets, tracking of exposure to airborne radioactive material, radiation protection procedures, whole body counter activities, measurement and evaluation of internal exposure, in vivo bioassay methods and sensitivities, comparative metabolism of intravenously injected promethium in swine and humans, preparation of project proposal for new rolling mill, uranium rolling studies, and fixed time estimation of counting rates with background corrections. 

09/0

San Bruno Federal Records Center (FRC) Hanford's request for data on the UCRL radiation exposure incident of 

April 1954. 

01/1

SAIC Radiation exposures by AEC Operating Office and summaries of whole 

body radiation exposures. 

09/0

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL Mallinckrodt uranium information, disposal of radioactive wastes in the 

metropolitan St. Louis area, metal billets for Hanford, inspection of uranium casting facilities, and remelting of Hanford uranium scrap at Mallinckrodt. 

11/0

University of Colorado Norlin Library Background measurements of alpha particle emitters at Rocky Flats. 08/2University of Rochester Miner Library Quarterly review report. 10/1Unknown Nuclear track emulsions and analysis of urine for very low level plutonium, 

bioassay procedures, calculation of neutron flux and exposure in Hanford reactors, film badge comparison, decontamination and decommissioning, 

detection limits, bioassay data, environmental reports, estimation of plutonium lung burden by urine analysis, experience with a routine fecal sampling program, external dosimetry manual, fast neutron dose, fission 

01/2

40 of 41
SEC-00152 09-28-09 FINAL 

41 of 41

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford 

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description C

product analysis of urine, gamma dose measurement with film badges, external dosimetry program, monthly reports, site history, medical X-ray exposure study, estimating neutron exposure, neutron exposure at the 105-DR Reactor, personnel film badge neutron dosimeter, plutonium, neptunium, and americium waste tank inventories, radiation protection aspects of work with promethium-147, radioactive contamination reports and investigations, radionuclide releases, thyroid disease study, nuclear track dosimeters exposed to plutonium sources, shipping documents, site maps, stack release data, summary of recorded external radiation doses, Tiger Team assessment, and whole body counter activities. 

Washington University Libraries - St. Louis Fast neutron monitoring of personnel. 04/2Total 

Table A1-2: Internet Searches for Hanford 

Database/Source Keywords 

Note: The normal prescribed publicly accessible internet database searches were not performed for Hanford. This action was not tak

an active DOE site and the cooperation of the site in collecting relevant data. Limited internet searches were conducted to attempt to via the site's resources.

Table A1-3: OSTI Documents Ordered for Hanford 

Document Number Document Title Date R

HW-81964 OSTI ID: 4020618 SRDB: 59951 

Beta-Gamma Dose Rates From U232 in U233 dated 1964 01/05/2